Well, he's a big boy and it's his job to vote on his interpretation of the law. If he felt like he was forced to change his vote, that's his
fault. Now he's going to blame the media and whine about it? Give me a break. Maybe the reason he's having second thoughts is because he's
getting a backlash from conservatives.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
so the scotus has the same dynamic of who is sitting with who in a high school cafeteria ?

basically ?

that's not very reassuring

That's how the whole damn planet works I think. Who is the hottest? He'll win. Heck, you can figure out who will win the election by height. The
taller man normally wins, the harvard man normally wins. Our hairless monkey butts haven't evolved very much at all lol.

On July 30, 2007, Chief Justice John Roberts collapsed on a boat dock at his Maine summer home. Although that seizure was Roberts’s second, he
offered little explanation. When Time magazine asked “Does Justice Roberts Have Epilepsy?,” Roberts didn’t answer, and he hasn’t in five
years.

Save the shame for your President.
Listen BH, my intent was in no way to offend anyone, if I offended you then I am really sorry,
However, there is no way I am going to sugar coat this for the sake of political correctness.
My point is, people take medication so they can function normally in society and if he skipped his dosage then this could explain why he did what he
did.
Since this is a conspiracy site then why not look at the possibility that the long arm of Obama's regime may have done something to keep Roberts from
taking his medication. Anything is possible when the government gets involved.

Btw, I don't understand why you are upset when the documented truth is as follows:

Do seizure medicines impair mental processes?
Seizure medicines act by reducing the excitability of nerve cells in the brain. They can also dampen normal activity and impair cognitive function --
things such as attention and concentration, energy level, mood, drive (the will to do things), and mental and motor speed on tests.

Originally posted by MRuss
In my opinion, Roberts had something to hide---something he may have hid during his confirmation hearings. And so, he was threatened in plain sight
through the media---in an article that hinted he may have lied during his confirmation hearings.

That is what this article was trying to say, without coming right out and saying it, as reported in this paragraph:

Some even suggested that if Roberts struck down the mandate, it would prove he had been deceitful during his confirmation hearings, when he explained
a philosophy of judicial restraint.

It was around this time that it also became clear to the conservative justices that Roberts was, as one put it, "wobbly," the sources said.

It also occurred to me that it was possible the Chicago thugs blackmailed Roberts. In other words, Roberts may have feared death threats, not the
displeasure of the Liberal mainstream media. ( If you think this is too far-fetched, see "We Will Not Be Silenced" about how the Obama camp used
death threats to secure the Dem nomination.)

On the other hand, Roberts may simply be a NWO shill, as both Obama and Romney are.

I hope more & more people wake up to the fact that our country has already been hijacked by evil men and it's already too late. At least, they will
recognize what is being done to them.

I've posted this before, but most here do not want to believe it. Obamacare is not about healthcare. It's about a massive Federal power grab. It's
about control & sucking the peons dry. And Big Pharma & the insurance industry will make massive profits from this.

TPTB do NOT care about healthcare for their slaves. There are already way too many of us. We are not needed. They have plenty of cannon fodder & cheap
labor. To them, we are useless eaters who suck up too many resources and who breed too much.

Obamacare is only part of a larger plan to turn the First World countries into Third World countries. TPTB do not need a large, well-educated Middle
Class who believe they have rights. I hope more & more people recognize the New Feudalism that is being hammered into place before our eyes.

As for the naive here who actually think Obamacare is going to improve their healthcare, they are in for a rude awakening. In 2014, when Obamacare
kicks in, the light will begin to dawn.

Many businesses will be forced to drop health insurance for their employees, they cannot carry the cost and keep their doors open. Employees will be
on their own. They will pay IRS the penalty tax, because it will be cheaper than the insurance. Eventually, the penalty tax will be increased because
not enough people are buying insurance.

Bureaucrats in Corporatist DC will be deciding what kind of insurance you can buy and what kind of healthcare you can access. Surprise, the
politicians LIED about your being able to keep your existing insurance.

Many doctors will refuse to part of the system. They will either leave Medicine or confine themselves to Private Practice. Only the Rich will have
access to the best doctors who are in Private Practice.

People dependent on Obamacare will wait in line to take a number to make a reservation to see a Physician's Assistant (if you're lucky, it may be an
RN), who will evaluate your case to see if it necessary for you to see an actual MD.

The very limited number of medical professionals available will be stretched to serve an additional 31 million poor people.

Obamacare had to be rushed into law because of a HUGE wave of Boomers about to retire & strain the existing Medicare system. Yes, this was more
important than the economy. (TPTB do not want a healthy economy, they want the US Dollar to collapse, so they can bring in a new currency.)

Under Obamacare, a board of civil servants will decide if the Aged need certain costly procedures.
The poor Aged are really "useless eaters" and will be the last in line to get decent care. But this will save the Corporatist Government so much in
Medicare expenses & Social Security payments if the poor Aged die as quickly as possible.

"The case was kicked from one department to another for so long, the patient died before a decision was made." Oops. So sorry.

Since SCOTUS decided that the Feds cannot blackmail the States into expanding Medicaid, many of the States are now seeking to kill the Medicaid
expansion by non-compliance. Many States are on the verge of bankruptcy. The States cannot fund the expansion of Medicaid and will not commit to it
because they know the Feds will not fund it for long. It will turn into another unfunded Federal Mandate that they cannot pay for.

So the poor, as always, will be shafted. And people here think "The Culling" is not real.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Here is a wild idea.
maybe the guy was just doing his job???

maybe???

How is a tax unconstitutional?

I'm actually pretty shocked that the supposed "strict constitutionalist" conservatives didn't agree with the taxation argument. I do understand why
they wouldn't go along with the "interstate commerce" regulation argument as I believed that to be less justifiable, but as a tax, the
Constitutionality should be unquestioned. The decision should have been 9-0.

And against this being the "conservative" position is pretty silly---the plan is very similar to the one proposed by those raving """socialists"""
called Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole, and the point about the penalty is to penalize 'freeloaders' and make the insurance underwriting more profitable
and predictable for large groups of the population. (And why are the supposed conservatives so determined to fight this---an insurance industry
scheme---vs repealing actual socialized medicine like Medicare---expanded by George W Bush---and VA??)

It's been settled law for hundreds of years that Congress has power to tax areas even if it does not have power to regulate (which is why the Federal
gasoline tax is 100% legal). The supposed "mandate" was no such thing---as nobody could go to jail, there was no possibility for prosecution and the
only consequence of not having insurance was adding additional tax on their Federal tax return. Really. There wasn't even a different mailing address
for the penalty, it was IRS and not The Department of Health & Human Services or whatever.

It's no different from the electric car tax credit or the exemption for children. Is that an unconstitutional requirement to made babies? No. Is
making babies interstate commerce? No. Does the government have the right to tax people differently depending on how many babies they make? Yes. Is
that unconstitutional? No.

So far, of all the justices, Roberts seems to have made what I think is the most obviously straightforward interpretation---that the "interstate
commerce" power does have limits as the Constitution says it does, and the "taxation" power has less limits, as the Constitution says it does.

The decision makes it likely that they would decide it to be unconstitutional to pass a law which would make a Federal crime if somebody fails to buy
health insurance.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
People change their minds. Whatever prompted Roberts to change his mind, he did so and it's his choice and responsibility. Blaming the media for
Roberts' decision is a cop out, IMO. If he made his decision and held firm against the pressure of his peers for 2 months, then he must have pretty
strong convictions about it.

Liberals being ok with forcing everyone to pay to private insurance companies whom they will later protest at your local Occupy-Insurance-Corps makes
absolutely no sense.

Liberals can still think that insurance companies are mostly scum, but be in favor of legislation which might make them slightly less scummy.

Originally posted by AuranVector
As for the naive here who actually think Obamacare is going to improve their healthcare, they are in for a rude awakening. In 2014, when Obamacare
kicks in, the light will begin to dawn.

Many businesses will be forced to drop health insurance for their employees, they cannot carry the cost and keep their doors open.

And how is that different from now?

Employees will be on their own.

How is that different from now?

They will pay IRS the penalty tax, because it will be cheaper than the insurance. Eventually, the penalty tax will be increased because not
enough people are buying insurance.

Bureaucrats in Corporatist DC will be deciding what kind of insurance you can buy and what kind of healthcare you can access. Surprise, the
politicians LIED about your being able to keep your existing insurance.

They aren't prohibiting insurance, they are making exchanges where you can compare qualified plans fairly.

Many doctors will refuse to part of the system. They will either leave Medicine or confine themselves to Private Practice. Only the Rich will
have access to the best doctors who are in Private Practice.

How is this different from now?

People dependent on Obamacare will wait in line to take a number to make a reservation to see a Physician's Assistant (if you're lucky, it
may be an RN), who will evaluate your case to see if it necessary for you to see an actual MD.

And without Obamacare how does it work if you don't have socialized medicine like Medicare? It's the same, or they tell you to FOAD when you don't
have insurance at all.

It's a minor improvement---the real problem is the wildly excessive cost compared to every other civilized country.
Japan spends half of the USA per GDP and has both national health coverage for all people and a very long life expectancy.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Here is a wild idea.
maybe the guy was just doing his job???

maybe???

How is a tax unconstitutional?

Love how everyone on ATS is a constitutional scholar when it comes to things they don't like.

You know what would have been even more constitutional? single payer healthcare...but nooo...republicans wanted =their= plan of capitalism and taxes
over actual good ideas and now we are stuck with this plop.

Roberts did what he did because he has a moment of clarity and remembered he isn't running for office, he is being technical on a ruling..and taxes
are perfectly within the rights of the government.

It was not drafted on paper as a tax.The verbiage Obamacare said fine. People will be fined for not having heath insurance. Roberts changed the
verbiage and Interpreted even though it said FINE. He changed the law from the bench.

Taxes are within the rights of the goverment, but fining people for not purchasing a good or service is called a dictatorship. Heres a good one.

" your candy bar will cost you $2 in taxes please" I dont want a candy bar "sorry, you owe $2 in taxes, pay up or go to jail"

Did you have a baby last year? Your failure to reproduce has cost you hundreds in your taxes.

This law will never be enforced. Republican governors will ignore it in 26 states. Democratic governors are broke, and cannot implement it. If it
were to be used corruption and cheating would negate it. It is unjust, unpopular, and unenforceable. A friend of mine with small manufacturing
business has 53 employees. He told his wife, that if this does go into effect, we will choose 4 employees to fire, and stay below 50, to avoid the
law. Or move the plant to Tijuana.

The almighty CONSERVATIVE USSC upholds an supposedly unpopular law (If it's so unpopular, where were the armchair soldiers when it was passed?) and
instead of accepting it, people bring up his confirmation hearings?

Just sounds to me like more conservative grandstanding. Don't get what you want? Make up some nasty, ridiculous allegation against a federal
justice.

I don't like where Roberts' stands politically but he did what he felt was the right thing to do at the time. There have been conservative (and
liberal) judges that have voted against the grain in the past.

Would conservatives have complained if Roberts towed the line and voted against the health care act? Would they have complained if a liberal judge
voted against his peers?

Originally posted by Alxandro
Listen BH, my intent was in no way to offend anyone, if I offended you then I am really sorry,

You couldn't possibly offend me. You are ignorant about epilepsy, seizure conditions and the myriad of medications used to control them. I'm not
going to be offended by your ignorance.

Since this is a conspiracy site then why not look at the possibility that the long arm of Obama's regime may have done something to keep Roberts from
taking his medication.

Oh, my God! That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard! For one thing, if Roberts was on seizure meds, and he didn't take them, he'd have a
seizure! Not lose his freaking mental abilities. You're so uneducated about this, you should be embarrassed to speak about it, but you're not. :shk:

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Here is a wild idea.
maybe the guy was just doing his job???

maybe???

How is a tax unconstitutional?

Love how everyone on ATS is a constitutional scholar when it comes to things they don't like.

You know what would have been even more constitutional? single payer healthcare...but nooo...republicans wanted =their= plan of capitalism and taxes
over actual good ideas and now we are stuck with this plop.

Roberts did what he did because he has a moment of clarity and remembered he isn't running for office, he is being technical on a ruling..and taxes
are perfectly within the rights of the government.

It was not drafted on paper as a tax.The verbiage Obamacare said fine. People will be fined for not having heath insurance. Roberts changed the
verbiage and Interpreted even though it said FINE. He changed the law from the bench.

Taxes are within the rights of the goverment, but fining people for not purchasing a good or service is called a dictatorship. Heres a good one.

" your candy bar will cost you $2 in taxes please" I dont want a candy bar "sorry, you owe $2 in taxes, pay up or go to jail"

Did you have a baby last year? Your failure to reproduce has cost you hundreds in your taxes.

Roberts interpreted the law as the substance: paying the IRS is tax.

edit on 3-7-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

You'll never get it. Goverment owns you and you welcome it with arms wide open

I disagree with you. I believe initially he was going to do what is right; ignore outside pressures and uphold the law, but as per usual, the Obama
administration and their thug-like tactics "changed his mind". If YOU read the article you have noticed the part where the other justices avoid the
media to avoid outside influence. He made the wrong call, period. You can argue that it's the supreme law of the land so it must be right but that
doesn't hold water. Killing unborn babies will never be acceptable regardless of how much revere the SC. And holding a gun to my head to make me buy
something I don't wish to buy is not the America I grew up in.

I believe everybody should purchase a 9mm handgun and if they don't, they should be taxed. Assessing a "penalty" against any citizenry for not
purchasing something has huge implications and it boggles my mind how many people don't see that. It opens the door for things I don't even want to
contemplate.

Originally posted by Alxandro
Listen BH, my intent was in no way to offend anyone, if I offended you then I am really sorry,

You couldn't possibly offend me. You are ignorant about epilepsy, seizure conditions and the myriad of medications used to control them. I'm not
going to be offended by your ignorance.

Since this is a conspiracy site then why not look at the possibility that the long arm of Obama's regime may have done something to keep Roberts from
taking his medication.

Oh, my God! That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard! For one thing, if Roberts was on seizure meds, and he didn't take them, he'd have a
seizure! Not lose his freaking mental abilities. You're so uneducated about this, you should be embarrassed to speak about it, but you're not. :shk:

Nice try at passive/aggressive. "you couldn't possible offend me, I don't get offended by idiots, morons and people who make me look stupid. I'm
always this defensive and condescending", in my best aristocratic voice.

to me the mandate is so blatantly unconstitutional that there had to be some strings being pulled to get this guy to weasel it through. even if you
like the mandate, you surely have to be able to see that if you view it objectively.

The portion that you underlined about the justices refusing to agree with points they previously agreed is mind-blowing. This just shows that judges
are influenced by their own opinions rather then the law. And they are willing to force compliance to their beliefs by ignoring things they actually
agree with as a protest to a judge not following along. Another thing that is evident, why all the justices who are conservative rule one way and all
the justices who are liberal rule another. Shouldn't the law control? Why do they seem to only follow party lines? It would stand to reason that
justices should be ruling on issuing both for and against their party affiliations, if they are indeed following the law.

But justices refusing to agree on stuff they agreed on just to make a statement, is childish. They all need to resign and removed from the bench IMO.
This is the type of power games that are being played at the highest levels of government that actually make a mockery of our system. It seems we have
very few honorable men in offices anymore.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.